Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Ed Davey and John Denham

Thursday 8th December 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Davey]

My hon. Friend will know that there are mixed views in the business community about whether or not the current TUPE regulations are gold-plated, which is why we have called for evidence. We have not published a consultation with specific proposals as we want to have evidence from all stakeholders, so that when we make our proposals in a future consultation they will be well evidenced.

[Mr John Denham (Southampton, Itchen) (Lab)]

May I draw the Secretary of State’s attention to the £150 million worth of entirely private investment that Associated British Ports wants to spend now to equip Southampton for the next generation of container ships? Instead of creating and supporting 2,000 or more jobs, this project is mired in red tape in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and its agencies. Will he speak to his colleagues to try to get this vital project under way?

Opportunities for the Next Generation

Debate between Ed Davey and John Denham

Tuesday 13th September 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Davey]

We are doing a lot better than under the apprenticeships guarantee. The hon. Gentleman should have apologised for his motion, because, as my right hon. Friend the Minister for Universities and Science clearly showed, it does not tell the real story—the success story—about apprenticeships by suggesting that it is a negative story. The truth is that the absolute number of all apprenticeships is up, as is the absolute number of young people on apprenticeships.

I am afraid that there was some misunderstanding of that success story, despite the support for our overall policy. That is not surprising, in a way, because Labour’s record is surprisingly poor in this respect. As my hon. Friends the Members for Wirral West (Esther McVey) and for Solihull (Lorely Burt) said, under Labour youth unemployment increased by 40%, and the number of NEETs increased. One of the most surprising facts is that as the number of NEETs was increasing under the Labour Government, it was falling internationally, so we fell behind Hungary, Greece and the Slovak Republic in what we were doing for the most vulnerable young people in our society. That is not a record for Labour to be proud of.

[Mr Denham]

The hon. Gentleman made a big point about statistics. Does he accept that the size of the cohort of young people rose massively during the years when Labour was in power, and that that is why we are right to say that up until the recession the rate of young people not in education, training or employment fell?

[Mr Davey]

The right hon. Gentleman will not admit that the percentage of unemployed young people increased. That takes account of all the issues that he is trying to wriggle out of.

There were complaints about parts of the coalition’s policies, particularly on education maintenance allowance. We heard impassioned speeches from the hon. Members for North West Durham (Pat Glass) and for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin); they both have a lot of knowledge in this area and I listened to them intently. The hon. Member for North West Durham said that she was particularly concerned, rightly, about the outcomes of the most disadvantaged. However, she failed to recognise that our reforms—our different approach—to EMA will mean that more resources are targeted at the most disadvantaged. The 12,000 most disadvantaged young people will get up to £1,200 in a bursary that will help them more than EMA managed to do. I am afraid that her criticism ought to be of the Labour Government.

Two of the coalition’s policies that are vital for young people did not receive the attention they deserved. The first of those is a policy that we should celebrate across this House because it was introduced by the previous Government—increasing the participation age in education and training. We had to make a difficult decision during the spending review about whether this Government would be able to find the funds to continue with that policy. It was a real challenge, but we found the money despite the problems. The shadow Secretary of State complains that we have somehow targeted young people in our policies, but nothing could be further from the truth. Despite the financial situation, we are going forward with raising the participation age in education and training to 17 in 2013 and to 18 in 2015. We should be proud of that policy. We have gone further than the previous Government did. We have increased the number of trials to ensure that the roll-out of the policy is more effective, and we have freed up local authorities to come up with new, more imaginative ways to deliver on it. These are the sorts of policies that will bring real opportunities for the most disadvantaged in our society.

Secondly, there are the reforms to vocational education that we plan to take forward following the report by Professor Alison Wolf. She shook up the cosy consensus that was allowed to develop under the previous Government and made it clear that things were not all hunky-dory and that we needed to back apprenticeships, which the Government were doing, but also, crucially, to increase the quality of vocational education and ensure that those on such courses still managed to achieve basic skills in maths and English. This Government will take forward her recommendations because we believe that that will make a real difference.

We have discovered a number of things today. We have discovered that there is agreement across the House that issues of youth unemployment and the need to increase opportunities for young people are a challenge and a problem, and have been for many years, and that many of the Government’s policies, particularly on apprenticeships, are a real way forward in tackling them. We have discovered that things got worse under the Labour Government, particularly for the most disadvantaged young people. We have discovered that, despite the rhetoric of Labour Members, this Government are determined really to do something for young people and to put social mobility at the heart of our plans to succeed where the previous Government failed.

Question put.

Postal Services Bill

Debate between Ed Davey and John Denham

Wednesday 12th January 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr John Denham (Southampton, Itchen) (Lab)]

I shall make a few remarks on Third Reading to summarise where we are as a result of the discussions of the past few months. The House may be aware that in what I can only describe as a spirit of total selflessness and altruism, I allowed my hon. Friends the Members for Llanelli (Nia Griffith) and for Ochil and South Perthshire (Gordon Banks) to lead for the Opposition in Committee. I thank them for doing so and for the excellent way in which they helped to scrutinise the Bill. I also thank the other Committee members and, indeed, the Minister, who I can see from looking at the Committee records and my colleagues’ reports was open and helpful in responding throughout its 20 sittings. There is no doubt that, including the evidence sessions, there was a great deal of opportunity to consider many parts of the Bill in detail.

The problem is that the Bill comes to Third Reading with many of the fundamental issues and concerns that were raised on Second Reading and that have been raised outside the House still unresolved. The earlier debates, including that on the new clause tabled by the hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell), show that concerns are not by any means limited to the official Opposition. This might not have been or have become an issue on which a head of steam builds up into a full- blown parliamentary revolt, but it is clear that the Government have by no means persuaded all their supporters of the wisdom of their policies and approach.

The Bill will now go to another place and no doubt the same issues will be discussed there. Those on the Labour Benches in another place will make every effort to make the progress that we have not made in the House of Commons. The central part of the Bill is, of course, enabling legislation. It enables the Government to privatise Royal Mail and to transfer this vital part of our national infrastructure to a foreign buyer. The Bill does not require the Government to do so and therefore today’s debate is not the end of the story. As I shall set out, too many uncertainties still exist to proceed just on the basis of where we are today. That is not just the view of the Labour Opposition; that is the view of Consumer Focus, which has looked at the matter from a customer point of view. As I shall show, that is also the view of the National Federation of SubPostmasters—the people who in many ways are meant to be at the heart of the Bill.

The House did not agree to secure a 10-year inter-business agreement today, but that does not mean that the campaign to get one will go away. If we have not so far explained to all the constituents of hon. Members who support the Bill why their post offices are under threat, we have plenty of time yet to do so and to push for a change in Government policy. The basic problem is that the Government have still not made the fundamental case for the full-scale privatisation that they have proposed, nor have they addressed the concerns that exist. It is very interesting and, of course, welcome that a new clause has been introduced that is designed to ensure that the Queen’s head remains on postal stamps. That is interesting because it has been made necessary solely as a result of the desire to privatise Royal Mail.

As long as the Post Office and Royal Mail remained in public ownership, as they would have done under the Bill introduced by the Labour Government, no one thought for a moment that it would be necessary to introduce legislative protection to retain the sovereign’s head on our stamps. It is only because privatisation is being brought in that that is at risk. The problem is that the Government, by conceding on this point, have accepted that full-scale privatisation opens up all sorts of possibilities and dangers that simply do not exist if the Post Office remains in public service.

[Mr Davey]

The right hon. Gentleman is incorrect on this point. It was a Labour Minister in the 1960s—Tony Wedgwood Benn—who tried to remove the Queen’s head from the stamp. I hope that he will correct the record.

[Mr Denham]

But the evidence remains, some 50 years later, that that did not happen. My point remains—public ownership, and the debates around it, protected that position.

Before Christmas, when the Minister was challenged on this issue, his response was, “Don’t worry. No sensible private buyer would dream of removing the monarch’s head.” He has now conceded that that response is not enough. Yet when Members asked him today about a private buyer’s relationship with the post office network, the same argument came into play: “Don’t worry. No sane private buyer would take the business away from the post office network.” If the guarantee is necessary for the sovereign’s head, it is necessary for the inter-business agreement with post offices. It will not do to ask the House to accept this on trust, because thousands of post offices are at risk. That is, and has been from the outset, the fundamental argument against a majority privatisation of the Post Office. Although Royal Mail must be run as a commercial enterprise, majority shareholding for the public gives an ultimate protection that privatisation will not provide. If the Bill is flawed, as it is, then that protection will not exist.

The case has not been made in other areas, because, in contrast with the situation just a few years ago, transformation and modernisation are under way. The challenge of bringing in capable, senior management has been met, as I am sure all Members who have met the chief executive will confirm. Investment funds are currently available, and there are mechanisms well short of majority privatisation or a minority shareholding that could be used to raise equity in future.

Postal Services Bill

Debate between Ed Davey and John Denham

Wednesday 27th October 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Davey]

No, I am sorry.

My hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Lorely Burt) raised concerns about the conditions for mutualisation. Of course we will have to ensure that there is a viable post office network, otherwise we could not make mutualisation work, so that is one of our conditions. Clause 7 makes it clear that a mutualised post office network would have to be “for the public benefit”, so that is also a clear condition.

Despite the fact that our Bill is better for Royal Mail employees, Royal Mail, the Post Office, customers and the taxpayer, the Opposition still oppose it. What is their problem? The right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East, the former Minister of State for Employment Relations and Postal Affairs, said that it is about ownership but he did not ask the next question: what is the difference between the shareholdings to which the previous Government and this Government were prepared to agree? That principle concerns about 0.2% of the shares—the extra shares that they were not prepared to sell but we are. The sale of those shares will free Royal Mail from Treasury control and will enable it to be the master of its own fate and to invest for the future without coming cap in hand to the taxpayer. New Labour has been dying for some years but with the opposition to this Bill, old Labour has returned. I thought that I would be in danger of being called Red Ed with the bail-out of the pension plan, but the real Red Ed is on the Opposition Benches—ideology before reality, dogma before common sense and, worst of all, vested interest before national interest.

The idea that public ownership has delivered a successful Royal Mail and post office network clearly is not right. Perhaps Opposition Members are aware that Royal Mail shed 65,000 jobs during the 13 years of Labour government, so public ownership did not deliver for workers. Let us consider the experience under privatisation around the world. Since Deutsche Post was floated in 2001, it has seen investment of £11.6 billion. That just will not be possible for Royal Mail if it remains in the public sector, but through our measures, it will become possible.

The right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr Denham) made another accusation against the Bill—it would lead to post office closures. What a cheek! Ten post offices closed in his constituency under the previous Labour Government and about 5,000 post offices were shut in total. As so many colleagues have made clear throughout this debate, Labour is the party of post office closures. This Government will not make those same errors. That is why my right hon. Friend the Business Secretary today announced our £1.34 billion investment programme for the post office network. That money will not pay for a closure programme—we will not throw money down the drain as Labour did—but it will bring a lasting change to the network and will tackle the underlying economic issues it faces. That is why the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues will see, when we make our full statement on policy for the post office network shortly, a Government working as one—joined-up government is what they used to call it.

[Mr Denham]

We look forward to hearing the more detailed statement. Will the Minister confirm that his Department suffered one of the largest departmental cuts in last week’s comprehensive spending review—25% of revenue and 50% of capital? Will he also confirm that the money announced today will come from that same pot of money? What other cuts that he has not yet announced will be made in BIS to finance it?

[Mr Davey]

Unlike the hon. Gentleman’s Government, we do not wish up new pots of money left, right and centre. Of course it is in the BIS settlement.

The Opposition made much of one point tonight. Apart from their ideological contortions over ownership, they have tried to suggest that separating Royal Mail from the Post Office will somehow be the catalyst for post office closures. Let me explain why they are wrong.

First, a privately owned Royal Mail will not act against its own commercial interests. It will not give up valued retail space in the heart of communities the length and breadth of Britain, creating a vacuum that its competitors would gratefully fill. To think otherwise one would have to be living on Planet Consignia. Have Members heard of Planet Consignia? It is where the previous Government once tried to place Royal Mail. This Government, along with most people in Britain, understand the value and tradition of royalty, and will not make such daft mistakes.

Secondly, Royal Mail has made it clear that the current long-term commercial contract between Royal Mail and post offices will continue. Only this week, the chief executive of Royal Mail, Moya Greene, told me that

“the support that the Government is giving to Post Offices Ltd should mean that the Post Office should become an even stronger retail channel for Royal Mail.”

She went on to say that it was “unthinkable” that there would not be a strong relationship between the Post Office and Royal Mail in the future.

Thirdly, if the Opposition are seriously saying the Government should write into the Bill that there should be a statutory permanent contractual relationship between Royal Mail and the Post Office, they would be risking not only a legal challenge from competitors, but setting the Post Office in aspic. Do they not realise that as Royal Mail’s letter volumes decline, so too will the mail business for the Post Office, so it needs to be given the opportunity to build new revenues? Do they not realise that new sources of revenue will be critical if we are to achieve a financially viable post office network?

I have a confession. I am a postal anorak. Before having the honour of being elected to the House in 1997, I was a management consultant and I specialised in postal companies. I worked on projects for Royal Mail’s equivalents in Taiwan, South Africa, Belgium and Sweden. Although I co-authored a report for the US Postal Service to put to Congress on the commercialisation and liberalisation of postal companies and markets around the world, I have to disappoint the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Gregg McClymont); I never worked on a privatisation programme—[Interruption.] Regrettably. Back then, in 1997—[Interruption.]